Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Karnataka HC Order Staying Probe Against Tejasvi Surya in Hate Speech Case

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in HC Order Staying Probe Against Tejasvi Surya

The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to entertain a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which stayed the investigation against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya in an alleged hate speech case.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta dismissed the plea filed by the Campaign Against Hate Speech (CAHS). “Sorry, we are not inclined to entertain your plea. If you want to withdraw your plea, then you can do so,” the bench remarked.

Following the bench’s indication, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition. However, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the Karnataka High Court for a modification of the stay order.

Background of the Case:

Tejasvi Surya, a Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was accused of making objectionable posts on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on March 22, allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct in effect for the Lok Sabha elections.

An FIR was registered against Surya under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion) and 295-A (punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with certain sections of the Representation of the People Act.

The Karnataka High Court had previously issued an order staying further investigation into the FIR, prompting the CAHS to move the Supreme Court seeking intervention.

Arguments and Decision:

The petitioner, CAHS, contended that the High Court’s stay on the investigation impeded justice and allowed Surya to evade accountability for his alleged hate speech. However, the Supreme Court bench expressed its disinclination to intervene at this stage.

The bench’s decision means that the stay on the investigation remains in place for the time being, though the petitioner retains the option to seek a modification of the High Court’s order.

This development underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach towards intervening in ongoing investigations and highlights the procedural avenues available for challenging judicial orders.

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!